Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Well, maybe the humans that have that intuition -- that justice must be served -- are not imagining things. And it seems to be an awfully general human intuition. But then, there's what God says about that...

Which version of God, and whose version of what God has to say?

The one that exists. The rest, you can forget about.

How do I know which one exists? I suppose it depends on who I ask.

[Atla]

Okay. But then you have to have some basis of enforcing any "morality," whether it's objective or subjective you have in view. Because morality tells people what to do -- especially when they don't want to do it, or have incentives for wanting to behave contrary to morality.

To test this, consider why we have a law like: stealing is wrong. Why would we have such a law, if stealing were not at least sometimes appealing to people? If they had no such temptation or incentive to steal, we would not need any such moral instruction at all. It would be as stupid as a law that said, "Do not eat tungsten for breakfast." Everybody would simply wonder why on earth that precept had even been thought of...and it would likely never be useful for anything. But morality (both objective and subjective) has the goal of giving at least one person (even though only one, in the case of subjectivism) moral guidance as to what is the "right" thing to do in a particular situation, in which his desires and inclinations are at least somewhat prompted to do the wrong thing.

So far, so good?

If you are an objectivist, you can have a range of tools to convince people. Certainly, some objectivists resort to using nothing but power. But if they do, then we have to wonder why it even matters where their "morality" view comes from, since power has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness. Other objectivists, like Locke or myself, would use persuasion, reason and logic to convince people to comply freely with objective morality, for their own good and for the good of their society. That's less swift than using power, but ultimately much more durable and effective, since it makes people convinced inwardly, not just compliant outwardly. And when power fails or lapses, persuasion remains.

But if you're a subjectivist, what have you got? By definition, you can't convince people by logic, evidence or proofs, since those depend on objective realities. And as a subjectivists, you have to believe that the only "rightness" behind your moral advice or 'law' is the emotional and predispositional sympathy of the listener, if he/she happens to have any. But ultimately, they have no duty whatsoever to care what you think; and if they think otherwise, they can do what they want, and a subjectivist has to accept that as every bit as valid, appropriate and moral as his own choice. And if (since morality instructs us what to do when our desires or incentives are contrary to the right thing) it is certain that many will prefer their own interests and desires to anything somebody else can subjectively offer.

That means subjectivism has to use raw power, or it is powerless. If it does not, it collapses into nihilism, solipsism or even unrestrained wickedness. Moreover it cannot ground a polity, cannot inform a law code or justice system, cannot instruct a people or nation what is worth corporately pursuing or eschewing as a goal...it cannot inform, in other words.

There could not be a more useless version of "morality," then. Even nihilism has one sort of virtue: predictability, reliability. Subjectivism, it seems, has none.

That's why it has to lapse into using raw power, or it just disappears.

Again, the basis is the human moral sense, the conscience. You don't have one, so you don't understand that most people are internally compelled to do what is "right".

Now if people come together and create a moral system, then again, that no longer gives only one person moral guidence, it gives moral guidance to all those people. Which will conflict with what some people think is right, but the majority and/or the powers that be, have decided what to follow and that's that.

The problem with objectivism is that while its convincing power is much stronger, today too many people can see that there is simply no justification for objective morality. It just doesn't work anymore in the 21st century.

Not "we." It's not we who need a limiting factor. What needs a limiting factor is the number of possibilities within the infinite universes. If the number of possibilities in it is truly infinite, then any amount of time or recursions does not make any one outcome any more probable. The odds always stay infinitely against any outcome at all.

That's because the infinite universe hypothesis is a total fraud. It's designed to give unthinking persons of limited mathematical discernment the feeling that an answer has been offered, while not revealing to them that the answer doesn't actually "answer" anything at all.

It's not a fraud, but it's also not the solution itself. It provides a framework in which to look for a solution.

"Childish"? And against that, you want to offer "infinite regress" or "reincarnation"? But it's really linear causality that's the problem. It's the realization that everything that has a beginning has a cause, and that causes proceed in linear fashion, just as all science assumes. So if you want to contradict the Kalaam, you first have to stop believing in linear causality...and science. And observation. And mathematics. And reality as we know it.

Is that a price you wish to pay?

Yes childish, but you misunderstand. What you are refering to with infinite regress and reincarnation, is the idea of eternal return, which is still childish. I meant that time is a closed circular thing, there is only one 'cycle' if you will.

[Immanuel Can]

Which version of God, and whose version of what God has to say?

The one that exists. The rest, you can forget about.

How do I know which one exists? I suppose it depends on who I ask.

Ask Him.

"You shall find Me when you seek Me with all your heart." (Jer. 29:13)

[Dontaskme]

No God.

No point.

I agree, there’s no point demonstrating the existence of No God.

[Immanuel Can]

Again, the basis is the human moral sense, the conscience.

No, it is not.

Conscience is the faculty that tells you when you are right or wrong. It does not make you right or wrong.

Murder doesn't become good if your conscience fails to tell you it's evil.

Now if people come together and create a moral system,

But they don't. Not without some basis of adjudication. They must first agree on what is real, what is important, and what is worth sacrificing in order to get there. And unless there's some objective basis for deciding that, then anybody can simply opt out of any legal scheme.

At which point, the only thing the subjectivist can do is use raw power to force him to comply with something he subjectively rejects.

The problem with objectivism is that while its convincing power is much stronger, today too many people can see that there is simply no justification for objective morality.

Now you're onto something.

The reason they reject objective morality is simple: they have rejected God.

Nietzsche saw this so clearly...why don't the skeptics read their Nietzsche more carefully?

Not "we." It's not we who need a limiting factor. What needs a limiting factor is the number of possibilities within the infinite universes. If the number of possibilities in it is truly infinite, then any amount of time or recursions does not make any one outcome any more probable. The odds always stay infinitely against any outcome at all.

That's because the infinite universe hypothesis is a total fraud. It's designed to give unthinking persons of limited mathematical discernment the feeling that an answer has been offered, while not revealing to them that the answer doesn't actually "answer" anything at all.

It's not a fraud,

Let's just say "gross mathematical and logical error, and totally anti-scientific." That's more precise

I meant that time is a closed circular thing,

Except it's not. And we can see that it's not, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe is tending predictably from a state of higher order to a state of lower order. That's linear, not cyclical. We have precisely zero scientific evidence for the coherence of the idea of a self-renewing universe.

And they say that religious people are "people of faith"...It takes way more faith to believe in something that's contrary to the most easily observed scientific laws, and bolstered by zero empirical evidence...and yet, people still do it.

[Harbal]

The one that exists. The rest, you can forget about.

How do I know which one exists? I suppose it depends on who I ask.

Ask Him.

"You shall find Me when you seek Me with all your heart." (Jer. 29:13)

Very helpful, IC.

[Atla]

No, it is not.

Conscience is the faculty that tells you when you are right or wrong. It does not make you right or wrong.

Murder doesn't become good if your conscience fails to tell you it's evil.

That's not what a conscience is (you don't understand this because you don't have one). What you are mentioning here is simply some thinking that compares human actions with objective moral codes.

But they don't. Not without some basis of adjudication. They must first agree on what is real, what is important, and what is worth sacrificing in order to get there. And unless there's some objective basis for deciding that, then anybody can simply opt out of any legal scheme.

At which point, the only thing the subjectivist can do is use raw power to force him to comply with something he subjectively rejects.

Well you answered your own objection. Plus you also answered how objectivists have done it.

Now you're onto something.

The reason they reject objective morality is simple: they have rejected God.

Nietzsche saw this so clearly...why don't the skeptics read their Nietzsche more carefully?

'Skeptics' all know this, you just pretend they don't.

Let's just say "gross mathematical and logical error, and totally anti-scientific." That's more precise

No, it's not more precise, as it's not a "gross mathematical and logical error", nor did anyone claim that an unprovable assumption is truly scientific.

Except it's not. And we can see that it's not, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe is tending predictably from a state of higher order to a state of lower order. That's linear, not cyclical. We have precisely zero scientific evidence for the coherence of the idea of a self-renewing universe.

And they say that religious people are "people of faith"...It takes way more faith to believe in something that's contrary to the most easily observed scientific laws, and bolstered by zero empirical evidence...and yet, people still do it.

And the second law is not an absolute law, just a statistical law, so in the bigger scheme of things it could be just a local feature.
The problem is that you are the one who started speculating beyond what can be known from science beyond reasonable doubt: a first cause definitely doesn't belong there. If anything, if you want linear time and the second law to hold, then they may have been going on forever without a need for a beginning.

[Immanuel Can]

How do I know which one exists? I suppose it depends on who I ask.

Ask Him.

"You shall find Me when you seek Me with all your heart." (Jer. 29:13)

Very helpful, IC.

Here's practical help. Start the conversation...with God. But as the passage says, you have to be willing to mean it, and to find what you're looking for. For again it says, "the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him." (Heb. 11:6)

Do it privately. Don't even tell me, or anybody else. Just try talking to God, honestly, frankly, in your own language, for...let's say 2-5 minutes a day, whatever you feel is appropriate. And see where that gets you.

I can't be more practical than that, can I?

[iambiguous]

But do we actually understand morality; or is it beyond human understanding?

Morality, in my view, can be understood [basically] by considering the following example...

...imagine that you are a castaway on an island in which you are the only inhabitant. What of morality then? Unless you believe in God, right and wrong comes to revolve solely around you and nature. If you survive another day, then you have done the right things. If you don't then, well, obviously.

It is only if and when another castaway arrives on the island, that morality becomes "for all practical purposes" a part of your life. Suddenly behaviors in your own little world might be challenged by this newcomer. You do this, he thinks you should do something else instead. Then over time you become acquainted with the means employed to resolve such "conflicting goods": might makes right [the strongest prevails], right makes might [a moral consensus is reached], moderation, negotiation and compromise [your way sometimes, his way other times].

The modern world of human interactions is just this basic reality extended to many more people. Wants and needs within the community come into conflict. Both before and after philosophy came on the scene. And, let's be blunt, philosophers have not exactly pinned down all that many One True Paths yet have they?

Then moral conflagrations occur either when the moral objectives attempt to impose their own value judgments on others, or the moral nihilists/sociopaths are powerful to impose their own selfish political agenda on others.

[Lacewing]

Very helpful, IC.

Here's practical help. Start the conversation...with God. But as the passage says, you have to be willing to mean it, and to find what you're looking for. For again it says, "the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him."

So... BELIEVE it BEFORE you receive confirmation and proof. Uh... that's not contrived at all.

[Immanuel Can]

No, it is not.

Conscience is the faculty that tells you when you are right or wrong. It does not make you right or wrong.

Murder doesn't become good if your conscience fails to tell you it's evil.

That's not what a conscience is...

Sure it is. Think about it.

Will believing murder is good make it good? No: whatever the moral status of murder is, it will be the same before and after your conscience speaks.

Now you're onto something.

The reason they reject objective morality is simple: they have rejected God.

Nietzsche saw this so clearly...why don't the skeptics read their Nietzsche more carefully?

'Skeptics' all know this, you just pretend they don't.

Then why don't they say it? Instead, they pretend they're going on "evidence," or "science," or "logic," some other such thing they're not actually using at all. What they're really running on is what the Bible calls, "hardness of heart." They've just closed their minds to any other possibility.

And you can see it, because every time you ask them to explain what they would accept as evidence for God, they can't tell you.

Let's just say "gross mathematical and logical error, and totally anti-scientific." That's more precise

No, it's not more precise, as it's not a "gross mathematical and logical error", nor did anyone claim that an unprovable assumption is truly scientific.

Since the "multiverse hypothesis," or "infinite universe hypothesis" are both unscientific and unprovable, why does anybody even float them as explanations?

Answer: again, "hardness of heart."

And the second law is not an absolute law,

I'm sorry...it's as absolute, verifiable and observable a scientific law as we have. If you doubt that one, you simply can't believe science is a road to knowledge at all.

just a statistical law,

Wow. How flatly wrong can one person be?

[Lacewing]

Very helpful, IC.

Here's practical help. Start the conversation...with God. But as the passage says, you have to be willing to mean it, and to find what you're looking for. For again it says, "the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him."

So... BELIEVE it BEFORE you receive confirmation and proof. Uh... that's not contrived at all.

Oh, and you'll be REWARDED for believing... if you believe that you will. Fascinating!

[Harbal]

Ask Him.

"You shall find Me when you seek Me with all your heart." (Jer. 29:13)

Very helpful, IC.

Here's practical help. Start the conversation...with God. But as the passage says, you have to be willing to mean it, and to find what you're looking for. For again it says, "the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him." (Heb. 11:6)

That's not going to work for me, trust me, it just isn't.

Do it privately.

If I were to ever try it, I would definitely do it privately.

Don't even tell me, or anybody else.

I wouldn't tell a soul, you can be sure of that.

Just try talking to God, honestly, frankly, in your own language,

Okay, but based on how well you know me, would he appreciate my sense of humour?

for...let's say 2-5 minutes a day, whatever you feel is appropriate. And see where that gets you.

I know what you mean, but I don't see any point in approaching this with a negative attitude.

[Atla]

Sure it is. Think about it.

Will believing murder is good make it good? No: whatever the moral status of murder is, it will be the same before and after your conscience speaks.

According to objectivists.
In subjectivist terms, the above sentences are too much of a mess to untangle - not right or wrong, just a mess.

Then why don't they say it? Instead, they pretend they're going on "evidence," or "science," or "logic," some other such thing they're not actually using at all. What they're really running on is what the Bible calls, "hardness of heart." They've just closed their minds to any other possibility.

And you can see it, because every time you ask them to explain what they would accept as evidence for God, they can't tell you.

Wrong, they haven't closed their minds. An omnipotent God could make his existence clear to the skeptics whenever he wanted to. It's just not happening.

Since the "multiverse hypothesis," or "infinite universe hypothesis" are both unscientific and unprovable, why does anybody even float them as explanations?

Answer: again, "hardness of heart."

Because this is the possibility that comes most natural when we extrapolate from the one known world and its known physical laws/physical constants.

I'm sorry...it's as absolute, verifiable and observable a scientific law as we have. If you doubt that one, you simply can't believe science is a road to knowledge at all.

Wow. How flatly wrong can one person be?

You didn't know that the 2nd is a statistical law?

[Immanuel Can]

Sure it is. Think about it.

Will believing murder is good make it good? No: whatever the moral status of murder is, it will be the same before and after your conscience speaks.

According to objectivists.
In subjectivist terms, the above sentences are too much of a mess to untangle - not right or wrong, just a mess.

I'm not lost, messed up or tangled. I can see it very clearly.

Why are you confused? Maybe because subjectivism doesn't make sense.

Then why don't they say it? Instead, they pretend they're going on "evidence," or "science," or "logic," some other such thing they're not actually using at all. What they're really running on is what the Bible calls, "hardness of heart." They've just closed their minds to any other possibility.

And you can see it, because every time you ask them to explain what they would accept as evidence for God, they can't tell you.

Wrong, they haven't closed their minds.

Then they aren't Atheists. They're just agnostics.

An omnipotent God could make his existence clear to the skeptics whenever he wanted to.

He has. They just refuse to see it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:19-22)

Since the "multiverse hypothesis," or "infinite universe hypothesis" are both unscientific and unprovable, why does anybody even float them as explanations?

Answer: again, "hardness of heart."

Because this is the possibility that comes most natural when we extrapolate from the one know word and its known physical laws/physical constants.

It's not "extrapolated" from anything scientific at all. It's a pure fantasy, and has no empirical (or scientific) basis whatsoever...in addition to being a mathematical absurdity.